Jun-En Enterprises v. Peter Lin

Ninth Circuit

Jun-En Enterprises v. Peter Lin

654 F. App'x 347

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket14-56613, 14-56621

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 654 F. App'x 347 (Jun-En Enterprises v. Peter Lin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jun-En Enterprises v. Peter Lin, 654 F. App'x 347 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Russell James Cole (“Cole”) and How Guin Robert Fong (“Fong”) appeal the district court’s orders imposing sanctions and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 409, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

The district court properly held that Cole and Fong failed to conduct “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), before filing pleadings asserting time-barred claims for breach of an oral contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1) *348 (two-year statute of limitations). Cole and Fong, however, made nonfrivolous arguments that a breach of fiduciary duty claim may have reasonably been timely. See id. §§ 338 (three-year statute of limitations), 343 (four-year statute of limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of Rule 11 sanctions for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but vacate with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. We remand to the district court to reconsider the amount of sanctions and to recalculate the attorneys’ fees award, as appropriate.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Russell James Cole (“Cole”) and How Guin Robert Fong (“Fong”) appeal the district court’s orders imposing sanctions and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 409, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

The district court properly held that Cole and Fong failed to conduct “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), before filing pleadings asserting time-barred claims for breach of an oral contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1) *348 (two-year statute of limitations). Cole and Fong, however, made nonfrivolous arguments that a breach of fiduciary duty claim may have reasonably been timely. See id. §§ 338 (three-year statute of limitations), 343 (four-year statute of limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of Rule 11 sanctions for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but vacate with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. We remand to the district court to reconsider the amount of sanctions and to recalculate the attorneys’ fees award, as appropriate.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 F. App'x 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jun-en-enterprises-v-peter-lin-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack